New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-04-14
THE HIGH-LICENSE VETO.

Governor Hills veto message on the Hign-
License bill is Of tho essence Of its author
It was to have been expected that man in his
position would have sought the strongest and
most defensibc grounds for refusing to sign
the Crosby bill, but the character of the pre-
texts which Governor Hill has raked together
illustrates himself far more than the measure
thew are supposed to relate 10. He rests the
veto on two grounds. First-He say 1T is
special legislation, in that it concerns New
York and Brooklyn alone. Second-Hc finds
in it an unconstitutional provision, and there
fore he poses, with the support OF Attorney
General O'Brien and cx-Judge Comstock, as
an ardent and incorrup6ble champion OF the
organic law. OF course, the message has TO
be read with a glass. The actual and notorious
fact being that David b. Hill Is the very
humble, faithful and Obedicnt servant OF the
rumsellers, and that he occupies the Executive
chair to carry out their views in shameless de-
fiance Of the decent public opinion of the
people of New.York the question is to what
extent if any, he has succeeded in yelling
this under a more or less specious argument
and more or less plausible pretencc.
His first objectiOn-tht tho bill is special
lcgislation-had been fully discounted before
he used it, and it therefore falls fat. He has
tried to reinforce it by showing that there are
more saloons in other cities OF the State tia
in New. York. in proportion, and perhaps there
arc some people simple enough to regard this
as forccful argument, though it is doubtful
if any such are to be found outside the liquor
organizations. A more impudcnt and cynical
trick of the Governor is his reference to the
MISREPRESENTATION Of New York. lie has the
hardihood to point to this fact as evidence that
this city does not really want temperance
legislation. Considering the notoricty of the
allegiance paid by nine-tenths of Ncw-York's
representative to tho saloons. this allusion
is somewhat beyond even the calous effrontery
habitual with Governor Hill. But it cannot
be overlooked that there is distinct favor OF
the gin-shop throughout the message The
brutal slurs and sneers at the temperance
sentiment of the community; the rowdy gibcs
at every movement Of defence against the
saloons; the undisguiscd contempt for the
opinions of all who do not affiliate with the
"boys"; the vulgar, low-minded pcttifogging
put forward so naively as argument; the gro
tesaue affectation of craftsmanship by this
special plcadcr for the dives; all seem to fix
the genesis of the document and to give 1t an
unmistakabl character. It breathcs OF the
rum-shops, whence beyond question its in
SEPARATION proceeded. Probably there is not an
other Executive in the United States capable
of putting his name to such a State paper. To
Governor David B. Hill, however, the veto
was no doubt quite natural.
The Constitutional objection is not little
hay. The assertion that the clause objected
to does destroy property" is absurd on its
face. The clause bears no such implication.
In fact, it does not touch tho property quality
in liquor. No restriction whatever is put on
the right of the owner to sell it. He is pro-
hibited from keeping it, This is not only not
unconstitutional, but is proved to be entirely
in accord with Constitutional law by long
line of police measures all based on the prin-
ciple that Government may inhibit the sale
or even possession Of any kind Of property, the
keeping of which is against public policy or
threatens the community with danger in any
form. But il is not worth while 10 waste an
alysis upon what was certainly never intended
for anything but sufficient disguise to I've
appearances the point Of view OF David
B. Hill and the rumsellers. The veto of the
High-License bill. Of course, proceeds from the
latter. We all know it. There Is hardly an